On 10 Jul 2009, at 07:42, Christopher St John wrote:
Specifically, in Section 3 "Choosing URIs" of HtPLDotW,
the suggestion to use mnemonic names (names linked to
some of the data about the object) has proven to be
problematic in practice. The "What to leave out" section
of "Cool URIs don't change" is very explicit that this is an
anti-pattern and should be avoided.
Now, there's a legitimate balancing act between using the
"don't depend on natural keys" best practice and minting
Linked Data URLs that are amenable to pattern-based links,
but for the most part doing things like including the word
"Berlin" in a canonical URI is just asking for trouble in the
long (200 year?) term (just ask the residents of Bombay)
When it comes to opaque or mnemonic URIs, there is a tradeoff between
reusability and longevity. Entirely opaque URIs are less likely to be
re-used and linked to than mnemonic ones. The practices in "How To
Publish" are really about pushing re-use and linking to the max,
because that was the first thing that needed to happen. Longevity
matters only after someone actually starts using your URIs.
If you really require your system to live 200 years, URIs are the
smallest of your problems. I suggest starting with a bomb shelter.
Best,
Richard
There's an escape hatch if you choose to use a widely
recognized naming scheme (like, say, ISBN numbers), but
even then there are risks if the semantics of the identifier
scheme don't match _exactly_ with the way the scheme is
being re-used (ISBN numbers don't correspond to books in
the way most people expect, and the fact that they can be
re-used generally comes as a surprise)
But, before I go saying critical things about HtPLDotW in
front of a live (and well informed) audience, I wanted to
do a sanity check.
Thanks for any feedback,
-cks
--
Christopher St. John
[email protected]
http://praxisbridge.com
http://artofsystems.blogspot.com
